Bill's Poker Blog

Flattening the Hierarchy of Cheating in Poker

2008-11-15T02:41:37-08:00

While I usually agree with Nat Arem on a lot of topics I’m not sure I can go along with him on his Hierarchy of Cheating in Poker.

In case you are too lazy to go read his post allow me to boil his argument down to a few points (Nat, correct me if you think I’m oversimplifying).

* Different types of cheating have different levels of severity

* Treating all types of cheating as equal is unfair

Now, I agree with Nat that not all cheating is equal but where I think his argument gets thin is in how he makes certain types of comparisons. For instance, I believe there is a difference in taking over someone’s account in mid-tournament and entering yourself multiple times in a tournament. The former I can see being done either out of perceived necessity (didn’t think you would make it that deep and you have another pressing matter to attend to) or plain ignorance. On the other hand, common sense would tell you that entering a tournament under several different accounts is a big no-no. The mere fact that you have to work around safeguards employed by the poker room should be your first clue.

But where I disagree with Nat is when he blurs the line between high stakes and low stakes. In his hierarchy it seems as if Phil Ivey taking over your account has different levels of severity based on whether the buy-in was $5 or $5000.

2 Playing on a second account when people don’t know it’s you playing on the account and the opponents would probably not adjust for your play if they did know it was you. Examples include the recent incident of Seal playing on “Soiled Deck” and winning a $5 donkament.

3 Playing on a second account when people don’t know it’s you playing on the account and the opponents would adjust for your play if they did know it was you. An example is what atimos did when he switched accounts.

While I’ll agree that overall the level of play in a $5 is likely different than in a higher buy-in tournament that does not mean that the opponent you face off against couldn’t have adjusted. Maybe you’re playing against a very good tournament player who is working his bankroll back up after going busto. Maybe the opponent is better than his bankroll allows because he lives in some third-world backwater. To simply assume that because it’s only a $5 tournament that the cheating is different than playing at higher stakes where you expect the competition to be more perceptive is where I think Nat and I have a disagreement.

Nat has several different analogies so allow me to throw in one of my own. While stealing toothpicks is a different crime than rape or murder it shouldn’t matter who you steal the toothpicks from. If I decide to mug people should my crime be treated differently based on whether I mug them in Beverly Hills or South Central? Wouldn’t one assume that someone in South Central would be better prepared to ward off my mugging and/or be carrying a weapon themselves?

Another area where I think Nat and I would disagree is in the area of intent. I agree with several of his points in creating his hierarchy simply because I can see where a less experienced player might not completely understand the ramifications of his actions. Some n00bie asking his roommate to take over his game while he runs down to Taco Bell could be written off as simple ignorance of the rules. Meanwhile if I were that friend he asked to play one would expect that I know better. A professional or semi-professional player knows he’s violating the rules and he knows what the possible consequences are. If he then violates the rules then I don’t feel any leniency should be afforded.

All in all, I don’t disagree with Nat’s overall premise that not all cheating is created equal. But I also think that Nat’s sample includes a lot of high-profile names or incidents and does not reflect how the rules and penalties are applied on a day to day basis. There are different levels of severity however I think intent is a bigger determining factor than stakes when it comes to applying penalties.

Advertisement: Fool-Proof SNG Poker System Earn Over $1200.00 Per Night Effortlessly at Online Poker Sit and Go’s

The B-Word

2008-11-14T20:08:33-08:00

Just to prove the point that the person who coined the phrase “getting there is half the fun” was either a liar or traveled to some pretty crappy places, I sat on the tarmac waiting to head to Bangkok for four hours on Tuesday.

When the pilot announced that due to some difficulties we had to return to the gates I assumed that we were having some sort of mechanical problems. Of course, by this point we were already two hours behind schedule so my connecting flight in Taipei was already a no go.

I asked on of the attendants how long she thought it would take and she said that she wasn’t sure. She said that someone onboard was sick and needed to be removed from the plane.

Of course, that didn’t explain why we had to taxi for over a half hour to the middle of nowhere.

When several LAPD officers boarded the plane, began removing the carry-on luggage of one of the passengers, and talking in hushed tones to the attendants it started to become clear that nobody was sick.

The pilot would later come clean and announce that a passenger had made a bomb threat and that they were removing the passenger and his luggage from the aircraft. The bomb-sniffing dogs did their job in the luggage hold of the plane and everything was declared kosher.

Apart from that, I think EVA Airlines runs a pretty good service. The seats were pretty comfortable for economy and the attendants were exceptionally nice. And either the isles are especially wide on their aircraft or the attendants are especially thin because not once in the 12 or so hours in the air did an attendant slam into me walking down the isle.

When I got to Taipei they had already booked me on the next flight to Bangkok. It was leaving in a half hour so there wasn’t any dallying around. I scurried across the terminal and got to my flight just in time. To my surprise my checked luggage made it and I was a happy camper.

It wouldn’t be Suvarnabhumi airport if the taxi drivers didn’t attempt to rape you outside the terminal. I’ve wised up and don’t exit arrivals at Suvarnabhumi (where they attempt to charge 900 baht for a taxi into the city). I go upstairs to departures and try to catch a metered taxi. Well f-me if the scammers hadn’t caught on that people like me were wise to them and they stationed scammers upstairs.

“Taxi boss?”

“Metered?”

“Yes, meter. 500 baht.”

“Well if you’re telling me what it costs before you even know where I’m going it isn’t exactly metered is it?”

I brushed him off and went up to the first driver standing there not looking like he cared if I needed a taxi or not. I asked him if he would turn on his meter and he enthusiastically said he would.

As we sped away he shared his thoughts about his fellow taxi drivers. Without having heard my conversation with the scammer he said, “500 baht too much. Not good. Make business bad for everyone.” Obviously they try to get everyone for 500 baht. Actual cost on the meter was about 200 baht. I gave the guy 300 just for being honest. Well that and the fare came to 200 and change and having just changed money all I had was big bills. Either way, I try to reward taxi drivers who are on the up and up.

But the travel karma gods weren’t done with me yet. When I came to Bangkok last Christmas they were holding their first post-coup elections. Whenever they hold elections they ban alcohol sales for a few days (usually the day before and on election day). I arrived on election day.

When I came again earlier this year in April the king’s sister had just died so they had all sorts of mourning events. They didn’t ban alcohol sales but the mood was a little more somber than I would have liked.

Well guess whose funeral is happening this weekend? If you guessed the previously mentioned king’s sister then you win a prize. I’m not sure what they do with the body for the six months between death and the formal funeral but from what I can piece together they’re going to cremate her on Friday, take the ashes somewhere on Saturday, and the bones someplace else on Sunday.

Okay, more guessing games for you. How does this impact me? If you guessed a ban on alcohol sales and all nightclubs being shut down then you’ve guessed correct. The worst part is, this being Thailand and all, nobody can gave you the straight scoop. Police sent out notices to all the bars telling them they were strongly encouraged to shut down Fri – Sun.

Now, if you own a entertainment venue (bar, nightclub, etc) in Thailand you probably make regular donations to your favorite charity (the policeman’s second wife, gambling, and drinking fund) which buys you the inside scoop on whether or not the coppers will actually enforce the laws or at least at what time they plan to make their raid so you can make sure to be in full compliance for the 20 or so minutes it takes them to go through the motions. So far I’ve yet to hear two bar owners give you the same story about who has to close and whether or not anybody will comply with the law.

So far, I’ve heard nothing being open Fri – Sun, bars allowed to open on Sat but closed Fri and Sun, and bars closed Fri and Sat but allowed to open on Sun. Oh, and then there’s the flaunting it factor. If you’re a nightclub you better shut the doors. If you’re a restaurant that also serves booze then keep it respectful and the boys in brown (BIB) will look the other way.

Oh well, we’ll see how the weekends shapes up.

Side note on one of the reasons Thailand rocks: I went to go get a hair cut today. I stumbled into the first salon I saw on Sukhumvit and asked for a trim. This gal treated the hair cut like brain surgery. She must have changed adapters on her shears ten times during the cut. She finished me off with a straight edge shave around my sideburns and the back of my neck. Then she motioned me over to a reclining chair and tweezed the ear hairs in each ear.

While she was going crazy on my ears they asked if I would like a manicure and pedicure. What the hell I’m already laid out in perfect position for both. I’ve got one girl sticking god knows what in my ears (I’m pretty sure at one point she burned something in my ear), one girl cutting my fingernails and another doing my toenails.

The whole package concluded with a half hour neck, scalp, foot, and hand massage.

Total cost for 2+ hours of pampering? Less than $25.

Advertisement: All About Phil Ivey Everything there is to know about the best poker player in the world.

Goodbye Gibraltar

2008-11-08T16:03:15-08:00

I decided to leave Party Gaming awhile back. I notified the MD and we worked out a succession plan. Last Friday was my last day in the office.

First off, before any 2+2 wild rumors start swirling around . . . it has nothing to do with anything other than the fact that I wanted to pursue a different challenge. Nothing mysterious or scandalous (sorry guys). I simply found I had gotten to a point where it felt like I wanted to do something else.

What that challenge is and where I’m off to next is something I’ll discuss in another post. I’ll still be involved with poker and I’ll let you know when and where at a later point.

Getting to this point in this post has been easy but I must have ten or more drafts of this post’s second half. After a great deal of soul searching I’ve decided not to mention specific people and what they’ve meant to me whether they be mentor, colleague, or friend (or any combination of the above).

Even though regular readers may fault me for my tendency to lean towards the verbose my previous drafts put my other posts to shame as it pertains to length. Yet even then I would finish a draft and remember people who I had forgot to mention or incidents I wanted to share.

Perhaps one day I’ll share those drafts privately with those with those mentioned but I highly doubt it due to my fear that people may begin spreading rumors that I am not the cruel, heartless bastard I try to make people believe that I am. Let’s just say that if we worked closely together, broke bread together, shared a few pints together, traveled (voluntarily) together, or I’ve given you a nick-name (other than jerk) then you were in one of those previous drafts and I will miss you.

Random Parting Shots

I’m taking some time off before the new adventure begins. If you know me that means I’ll be traveling. So far my trip spans 25,000 miles in the next two and a half months without including side trips.

I’m writing this sitting in the upper class lounge for Virgin Atlantic and to quote/paraphrase Ferris Bueller; If you have the means, I highly recommend it. Don’t worry, I haven’t suddenly become wealthy. I bought the economy ticket and used my miles to upgrade.

Because my internet access will be spotty I don’t know when I will be able to post the words I am writing now. As I write this it is ~~April~~ Nov 4th, election day in the US, and every channel in the Heathrow Virgin Atlantic lounge is trained on the election coverage. The Financial Times even has an entire section devoted to how to make an affair out of watching the election.

I’ll land too late to vote (and in the wrong state) but based on polls I’ll pretty much know who the next president of the United States is as soon as I see a television or hear the radio when I land.

Last night I spent the evening in the Gatwick Yo Hotel. If you don’t know about this chain it is modeled on the Japanese pod hotels. It’s nothing more than a room just big enough to fit a bed and a shower. You rent the room by the hour and they are aimed at travelers who simply want a place to stay between flights. Catch some sleep, take a shower, and catch your flight. All without ever leaving the airport.

The room is so small that in normal configuration the bed sits up like an oversized sofa. You press a button and the bed mechanically extends itself to full lay-down position. There’s a 27” television on the wall, no dressers, nor closets. Attached to the bedroom is a no frills shower in which the sink, toilet, and shower are all in the same confined area. At most, it’s one step from the bed to the bathroom.

To be honest, I found it to be quite nice for its intended purpose. I wouldn’t book it for a week long stay but if you find yourself needing a play to stay for 6 – 12 hours and don’t want to fork over the cash, taxi fares, etc that would be involved in booking a regular hotel this is a very nice option. In my case, my cost was about 33% of what I would have paid for one of the other Gatwick hotels since I would have been charged for a full day.

Anyway, like I said, I’ll be traveling so updates should be be a little infrequent for the next week or so.

Advertisement: PokerFilter.net combs the internet looking for the best poker related news and articles.

Lehman Brothers Protest

2008-10-29T08:36:08-07:00

Hell no, we won’t go!!!

Defending Your Button by Marcus Bateman

2008-10-19T15:38:17-07:00

Much is made in poker literature about defending your blinds but less is said about defending your button. It is very important that you try and play as many pots as possible when on the button, as you can use the sledgehammer of position to really put your opponents to the test. In the current poker climate, where many players are starting to play a very aggressive and loose style, you will frequently have a raise in front of you before the action gets around to you on the button. It is important to send a message to the players at your table that you will not allow them to continually raise when you are in position.

By playing lots of pots on the button, you will quickly start to make it clear that you will not give up position lightly - players quickly notice that they always sem to be playing pots out of position with a specific player and try and adjust their behaviour accordingly. The button is an incredibly important position in any form of poker that has rotating blinds - the largest percentage of your profit will come from it (particularly if playing short handed where position is extremely important due to the much larger number of decisions players have to make).

If you want to see the effects of this for yourself, simply download any of the available poker tracking software and look at your positional statistics - you will quickly see that the button is by far the most profitable position, followed by the cut off, then the hijack and so on around to the blinds where your profit will turn to a loss.

Playing in position as often as possible is perhaps the most important concept that has to be grasped in order to become a successful poker player. Because of this, it is imperative that you do as much as possible to a) play as many pots as possible when on the button; and b) do your utmost to make the table wary of opening when you are on the button - giving you the best chance at not only being the first player to raise, but also to do it in position on the players holding the reason your at the table - those sitting in the all important blinds.

Remember that your time on the button will always be the most profitable of your time at the table. Protecting it and playing on it are critical to poker success and you forget this at your peril.

To read more poker articles by Marcus Bateman head over to the Betfair Poker Blogs

Advertisement: All About Mike The “Mouth” Matusow - Keep up to date on his infamous melt downs, his outbursts, and everything else

The “Skill Game” Argument For Online Poker To The U.S. Politicians

2008-10-19T15:33:17-07:00

As a long time reader of Bill’s blog, when I saw there was an opportunity to write here, I knew I couldn’t pass it up. My expertise really falls further on the business and affiliate side of online poker versus the player side. Nonetheless, you can occasionally find me relaxing in the evenings after a long days work playing in SNG’s or smaller MTT’s.

Over 90% of the time I fail to cash in the tournaments. Okay fine, I admit it I am a donkey. I play far too aggressive, I don’t even know how to calculate pot odds, nor do I play each position properly. If you are ever sat at tournament table with me, you should probably be looking to double through me before anyone else.

But the beauty of it is, I know there are far better player out there than me, and that I’ll probably have to get lucky to win. This doesn’t bother me though. I love to gamble, and I find playing in MTT’s a couple nights a week to be relaxing. The money I win or lose is completely discretionary and makes no difference in my day to day life.

So this leads me to the point of this article. Why is there so much focus by the PPA and others on selling that poker is a skill game to the U.S. government. The fact is that less than 20% of regular online poker players are true “winning players”(It’s probably even less, I don’t know the exact statistic). The other 80% however are either break even or losing players.

Of course there is no question that poker is a skill game, I’m not arguing that. As poker players we are well aware of this. But when the numbers show that such a small percentage of players are actually profitable, I think it makes for a weak argument to our government. Sure, many people reading this blog are in that 20% and have mastered the skill of being a winning online poker player. A lot of the readers here even play poker for a living. I have much respect and envy for you guys.

But the reality is that a HUGE majority of online players are people with regular full time jobs who are playing with discretionary income, and doing so for recreation and entertainment. Put your hands up if you’re like me and would rather sit with your laptop playing a SNG than watch another episode of “Dancing With The Stars” with your wife.

There is nothing wrong with playing for fun and recreation either. That’s why poker is one of America’s greatest past times. Hell, I could spend the same $50 at the local watering hole getting plastered, destroying my body, and risking others lives driving home. Instead I choose to spend MY money in the comfort of my own home playing the greatest game in the world, poker. There are thousands of worse things I could be spending my money on.

The government can argue about the potential for addiction all they want, fair enough. But if they are really looking out for the people, then get rid of cigarettes, booze, porn, strip clubs, and every other vice out there.

The better argument should be focused on the fact that as American citizens we pay through the nose on taxes. If the United States government can spend trillions of our tax dollars on bailouts that include $500K AIG parties; well then for the love of God let me escape reality television in the evenings, and allow me to play a $10 SNG online. Furthermore the U.S. does not own the internet. When I login into an online gaming site, I am playing cards and transacting money on a server that is based in a legal jurisdiction.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. If gambling is so evil in the government’s eyes, then why is it that I could go into my local gas station every morning and buy $100 worth of scratch off tickets? Obviously the answer is taxes, we all know that. The whole point of this article however is that as tax paying, law abiding citizens, we should be able to exercise our first amendment rights and spend our money any way we please. My guess is that less than 5% of individuals who play online poker are what you would consider a professional winning poker player. For that 5% the skill game argument is great. For the rest of us however, we should be arguing that this so call prohibition known as the UIGEA is unconstitutional.

Please feel free to share your comments on this, as I’m sure there are a wide variety of opinions on the skill game argument. Thanks Bill for giving me the platform to write here.

Jeremy Enke is the founder of the worlds largest poker affiliate forum and a leading consultant in the poker affiliate market. More of his thoughts and ramblings can be found in his personal blog at www.JeremyEnke.com

Advertisement: Your Ad Here! Advertise on Bill’s Poker Blog.

Getting All Juiced Up

2008-10-03T08:42:08-07:00

The always articulate Haley Hintze left a comment on a post I made the other day about online poker being rigged which I wanted to respond to. I felt that it would make a better post than a comment so here we go.

Hiya, Bill!

This an example where I think Ed is serving the greater good, whether or not everything he says can be supported. I’ve thought about posting on this myself, but whether I do or not, I think Stars is in clear error here. One reason is technical and the other is philosophical.

Reason 1: There are clear guidelines for how triple draw is supposed to be dealt. I disremember if that game is in Lou Krieger and Sheree Bykofsky’s “The Rules of Poker” (that’ll be 50 cents, guys!) but I’m absolutely sure the printed rules are out there somewhere. So the “because we can” argument as stated by Stars is meritless.

Second, Stars needs to -not- do things that give any sort of mathematical credence to the “online poker is rigged” crowd. Mathematically, the effect of the change made will involve a very slight juicing of the results and will result in something like one extra player being in the pot maybe every thousandth hand in triple draw, and maybe a little more frequently in badugi. It therefore increases rake by some tiny, all-but-imperceptible amount. When it’s measured statistically, it’s probably down in the four- or five-decimal-point range regarding its effect on play. It’s negligible in triple draw because there are almost never enough players in a hand to bring a reshuffle into play.

But even if it’s an unnoticeable juicing, it’s still a juicing that exists in the mathematical sense, and can therefore be used as a mathematical “proof” that the game is rigged to increase rake or whatever. It’s the wrong tool to hand to the wrong crowd.

I have no clue which big-name pro came up with the idea, but famous players can still have bad ideas and this one should have been deep-sixed. Was the unknown player on any of the rules committees that have sprung up to promote rules standardization, like Jesse Jones’ WPA? I’d guess not. Hachem’s been on that board, IIRC, so he’s probably not the pro that floated this one.

I’ll skip the rest of the tinfoil hat portion of the discussion.

Stars’ handling of dead blinds is wrong, too. That’s a much greater issue in terms of play because it can affect strategy at the table, but it’s not a “Rigged!” issue that can be used against the site and against online poker in general. That’s the key difference.

For those of you who read Ed’s article Ed actually covered two topics. The first, which I didn’t address in my last post, was what Haley is speaking about.

I agree with both Haley and Ed on this. As the poker room manager at a major online poker site I am often faced with decisions which revolve the integrity of the game. Sometimes a well meaning co-worker will suggest a feature or a change that I feel would violate the integrity of the game. Other times players request changes that would impact the integrity of the game and I have to make an unpopular decision.

The online version of poker allows for things that are not possible in the offline world and so all online poker rooms have to make these types of decisions. Sometimes I agree with how a room has handled something and sometimes I do not. For instance, offline you cannot multi-table (though I have seen Rick Wampler attempt it). Does allowing a player to player in more than one game at a time impact the integrity of the game? In this instance, I don’t think that it does.

However, many rooms will check your hand if there is no action before you and you time out. In my opinion this amounts to acting on the player’s behalf. If you were in a live poker room and it was your turn to act and the dealer checked your hand by moving onto the next player most of the other players would object because his hand, according to the rules of the game, should be mucked. By passing over you the dealer is effectively making a betting decision (not to bet) on your behalf and the one player to a hand rule is violated.

In the Stars example, again, we see a case where you have something that on the surface might appear to be to everyone’s benefit but in effect alters the game and thus violates the integrity of the game. The game no longer follows the rules of triple draw so it should not be called triple draw. Hell, call it “triple draw no duplicates” or “online triple draw” but you can’t maintain the integrity of the game while still calling it triple draw.

While Stars might feel this is a better way to do it they should also recognize that they’ve altered the game. And they should also recognize that people who play triple draw in the offline world won’t be aware that they’ve altered the rules of the game and may be making decisions on hands that assume certain facts which don’t hold true in their version of the game.

Now, I will say that I think Haley stretches it a bit by saying that it’s rigging the game. Rigging a game implies that someone does something which is intended to benefit either a player (or group of players) or the house without the knowledge of the victim(s). While players who are familiar with the offline rules for these games might be at a disadvantage Stars does not seem to be hiding their rules. Likewise, as Haley points out that the amount of extra juice Stars might be making does not appear to be a motive.

If we stretch the definition to that extreme then almost anything the poker room does would be considered rigging as the rooms are incentivized to generate rake. You could say multi-tabling is rigging the game because players playing multiple tables don’t chase as often due to the fact that their attention is too divided so more hands get played per hour and the poker room makes more money*

I can understand the sentiment. I just don’t agree with it. #

I think it would be a shame if there were online and offline versions of poker with different rules and procedures. Sure there will always be differences between the two but a player who plays the game online should be able to expect that the same rules are being applied when they walk into a live card room and vice versa. If a poker room alters the rules they need to give the game a new name so as to avoid the very confusion that standardizing rules is meant to avoid.

* Poker rooms generally make more money on smaller pots with higher turnover than they do on building big pots due to the fact that most rooms cap the rake leaving no extra money to be made.

Advertisement: Fool-Proof SNG Poker System Earn Over $1200.00 Per Night Effortlessly at Online Poker Sit and Go’s

10 Questions With Rafe Furst

2008-10-02T08:41:20-07:00

I did this with Rafe a few weeks ago but just got way too caught up in some things in my personal life that I never got around to posting it. My apologies to Rafe for not getting to it sooner. Later on this month I can go into some additional detail about what it was that kept me so occupied.

WSOP bracelet winner, Rafe Furst, is a lot more than just a poker player. He’s also a talented technologist, a full-fledged member of the Tiltboys, accomplished Roshambo player, a member of the Full Tilt Pros, sometimes poker journalist, investor, and co-founder of Expert Insight. Oh, and in his spare time he and Phil Gordon raise money for cancer research.

In addition to his WSOP win he also took fifth place in a ladies event (yes, you’re reading that right) and developed a certain level of infamy when he was featured on the ESPN coverage of the 2003 WSOP Main Event as the first player out in under 11 min.

Without any further ado, 10 questions with Rafe Furst.

1. You’re somewhat known for your interests in cutting edge, geeky stuff. What’s got your attention these days?

I’m into cancer complexity and blogging about cutting edge, geeky stuff.

I’m also helping a friend revolutionize the way seed funding is done for startups. If there are any serious venture investors or startup companies who consider themselves mavericks and who have read and agree with the premise of the book, The Black Swan, have them contact me.

2. You and Phil and Phil Gordon have both been good friends of the poker blogging community. In fact, you have both been known to do a little blogging yourselves. What are your impressions of blogging and social networking in general and then more specifically your thoughts on the poker blogging community?

I have been a bit out of the loop on poker blogging lately. But in general poker blogging has been largely to credit for the rapid increase in overall skill amongst players worldwide, shortening the time it takes to become a world-class expert from decades to a couple of years, and it has also helped tremendously in making the game popular in all corners of the world.

More generally still, blogging (and social networking) is changing the face of public discourse, politics, journalism, science, and interpersonal communication. For those who don’t quite get it, find out how the world feels.

3. The whole online poker industry has gone through an exciting change ever since the UIGEA was signed into law. What are your thoughts on how the legality of online poker issue plays out over the next few years?

The trend (thanks in no small part to the PPA) is towards reversing draconian policies, educating lawmakers on the nuances of poker and its positive impacts on people and society, and eventually creating a welcoming, regulated environment in the US for online play. If Obama wins, the poker world will be far better off than it is currently, across the board. OTOH, the Republicans seem to be throwing poker under the bus in an attempt to get McCain elected, so anyone who is inclined to support McCain needs to convince him to break with his party on this. Go to PokerPlayersAlliance.org and it will take under a minute of your time to blast a missive to McCain telling him how you feel about keeping poker legal.

4. The Absolute and UB cheating scandals have given the industry a black eye when it can afford it the least. What kinds of things can online rooms or the industry do to better promote game integrity?

The main thing is for the US to regulate and tax online poker. That will solve most of the problems automatically. As far as the poker rooms are concerned, they need to be as forthcoming and transparent as possible when it comes to cheating of any sort. It’s in their own financial best interest to do so, and the it’s strictly mismanagement and shortsightedness that would cause any site to act as if it weren’t. The honest players (which are 99.99% of them) and the online poker rooms have the same goal here, so it’s also incumbent on the sites to listen to what the players are saying and to take all allegations seriously and investigate promptly.

5. You and Phil have been very involved with the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation and have used poker to raise money for cancer related causes. Do you ever feel like more professional players could be doing more to raise awareness for causes they believe in?

Honestly the thought never occurred to me until you asked. People do what they are moved to do and what they are capable of. I don’t resent anyone who makes different choices than I do because I am not them and I have no idea what lead them to this point in their lives, or what they are doing that I don’t know about. I know for a fact that I am one of the most fortunate people on the planet and one of the happiest. For me personally, it’s only natural to want to help others attain some of the the happiness and good fortune that I have had, and maybe in the process inspire others by example. That may sound platitudinous, but it’s how I feel.

6. 2006 was a really great year for you having won a WSOP bracelet in the $1500 PLH and took first in the UPC. How’s the poker been going since then?

It’s been fantastic. I haven’t had any results to speak of, and to be honest, I’ve played very little compared to previous years. But I view poker as something that I enjoy doing when it fits into the rest of my life, not as my entire life. Other things, including my personal relationships, have taken more of a front seat in the last couple of years. My fiancee is incredibly supportive of everything I do, even though she is not interested in poker at all herself, and I’ve just found myself wanting to do more things with her than not. That said, I am writing this on a plane to Europe with her, and while we mostly going to be travelling as tourists, we’re going to stop in Cannes and Barcelona where I’ll play in some events. To me that’s the perfect way to integrate poker into my life.

7. Beating Phil Gordon to a WSOP bracelet has been devastating for Phil. How frequently do you remind him you’re a bracelet winner and he isn’t?

As you probably know, Phil is self-tilting so I don’t need to remind him at all :-) In all seriousness though, I have never felt from him anything but happiness and pride in my accomplishment. He’ll get his soon enough and he knows it. He’s such an unbelievably talented card player that sometimes people think that he doesn’t try hard enough or play enough to have the success that he has had. But anyone who doubts this should check out how he finished in the recent bridge championships, a game he hasn’t played seriously in 20 years.

Phil also recently had his first child, and I feel that this has profoundly affected his Tiltmeter(TM), in a positive way. This year at the Main Event, he had something like $200K going into Day 3 and was just destroying his tables with good play. He got cold-decked and was out in a few hours, but was not on tilt at all. He told me he’s got nothing to complain about and was looking forward to spending the rest of the day with his wife and baby. I’m really proud of how Phil has comported himself and his philosophy of life over the last few years.

8. Any chance of you and Phil bringing back the poker podcasts at future WSOP events?

Yeah, it’s possible. Both of us are more inclined to innovate than go back to the same well, but stay tuned, there will always be something interesting around the corner.

9. The WSOP Main Event final table in Nov . . . what are your thoughts?

Great idea in theory, I agree with the decision based on the goals of invigorating poker and getting more excitement and attention paid to the ME Final Table than in years past. If it does the trick, then I see nothing to complain about by anyone.

10. What’s your secret for dominating the Roshambo world?

Duh, I always go rock!

Advertisement: All About Phil Ivey Everything there is to know about the best poker player in the world.

How Easy Is It To Rig Online Poker?

2008-09-30T10:48:30-07:00

I received the email below from a software engineer who has experience working in the online poker industry. He asked that I not include his name but I can attest for the fact that he’s a solid engineer who’s skills I respect.

I found his take very interesting because unlike most people who claim that rigging a game would be trivial, this person has been very involved in the industry and knows a little something about the problems someone might encounter if they actually had to implement a rigged system.

As I’ve said previously it is very easy to claim that rigging a game is easy however it’s an entirely different thing when you have to sit down and figure out solutions to questions such as the one this software engineer raises. In fact, he raises only one of many, many such issues that one would need to face if they were to actually implement such a scheme.

In reply to your most recent post, “Online Poker Isn’t Rigged … Again!” What most people don’t realize is that there isn’t a proper heuristic to determine whether the players involved in a hand should be dealt using a rigged deck. Let’s ignore how the poker site is going to rig the cards for a minute and instead focus on how to determine whether the current hand should be rigged.

With Google, they have some complicated heuristic algorithm that determines why one page scores better than the other one. With Anti-Virus Software, they use a heuristic algorithm that determines whether a program contains elements similar to a virus. But how does one do the same with determining whether a poker hand should be rigged? Should it be the number of people involved in the hand or the amount of money they have in their account? Maybe by frequency of deposits to the site or whether the player recently doubled his stack? There are a lot of factors for online poker sites to use so if they were going to actually rig the hands they would want the most optimal heuristic they could find to maximize their cheating profits.

But let’s say that the owner of the site is a greedy bastard who doesn’t really care who gets dealt a rigged hand. “AS LONG AS I GET AN EXTRA $10K IN RAKE A DAY I DON’T CARE!” Then he now needs the players in the hand to follow along with the way the rigged hand is setup. So in a situation such as Aces vs Kings, most of the time all the money will go in preflop. But maybe because both players in the hand have deepstacks and one of the players knows the other player’s tendencies so well he is able to get away from Kings preflop for 300 big blinds.

Even if the site owner decides to rig Aces vs Kings hands that’s not that much more money per day that the site is getting in rake from the player base to justify the risk. The owner then has to decide whether to increase the frequency of AA vs KK situations or start rigging other hands and situations. Now the rigged deck AI must be able to evaluate whether two players involved in a hand will get their money into the middle. How is the AI suppose to determine whether the players will generate the maximum amount of rake in that hand and how will the AI know how the hand action will go such as whether a player will raise/call/fold a flop? Now the owner needs the AI to determine whether or not these players have any “history” versus each other and tell the AI to act accordingly. But then once an AI can detect those type of tendencies one may as well NOT rig the game and concentrate on a bot that will be able to play NLH completely under the radar.

So for me as a programmer, I can decide to go through all that trouble to make some extra money while risking my reputation or I can just increase the max rake on the site by 100%. Through the powers of laziness I have just increased my daily gross without having to lift a finger.

Advertisement: PokerFilter.net combs the internet looking for the best poker related news and articles.

Online Poker Isn’t Rigged . . . Again!

2008-09-28T08:41:16-07:00

After working so hard to make it on my top ten list Ed Miller seems to have posted something that I disagree with.

It’s the dreaded “online poker is rigged” argument again. Granted, Ed doesn’t say that online poker is rigged but he does stir up the pot a bit. He goes as far as saying that it can be done and an online poker site might do it. Here we have two different questions. The first is whether or not it’s possible and the second is whether or not a site would do it.

In taking on the second question, I’ve always approached this question from the standpoint of a medium or large site. If a player is going to get himself involved with some no-name poker room then it’s a crap shoot. Most people aren’t complaining about rigged games at no-name card rooms. The vast majority of online poker is rigged claims come from people playing on the top 10 rooms.

So, if we’re talking about a top ten room then I would say that the motivation for rigging the game favors not rigging it. As I articulate in a previous post there are so many other ways for a poker room to increase its profits from you that are entirely legitimate. And if you took the time to brainstorm a bit I’m sure you could come up with ten or fifteen more suggestions of minor tweaks the room could make to the game that would generate more hands per hour and/or more profits for the room. Until someone can answer for me why a room would go to all of the trouble to rig the game before having exhausted these other much more simple methods then I simply cannot buy this argument as being logical. Granted, a poker room might act in an illogical manner but if we’re to assume that all actors act in a logical manner then this doesn’t hold up.

The other part of Ed’s argument is that it’s even doable. Of course it’s doable but let’s put the caveat on there that you need to be able to do it AND not get caught. That caveat presents an entirely different problem.

Now, Ed is a man who isn’t exactly ignorant when it comes to software engineering. He has two degrees from M.I.T and used to work as a software engineer at Microsoft. So it’s deceptively easy for one to simply accept it as fact when he says creating a system that could do all of this rigging would be rather trivial. However, I’m not one to simply accept an argument simply based on the source. I put it back to anybody who claims that this would be trivial to at least outline how they would go about solving the problem without getting caught.

See, that’s the one thing missing from every argument from a software engineer regarding building such a system. There’s always some guy who says “I’ve been a coder for a jazillion years and this would be easy.” Okay then, tell me how.

There are some fundamental problems in designing a system that needs to escape detection. First thing off the bat is that such a system would need to follow certain rules in order to determine who to rig the game in favor of and how to rig the games. My theory here is that given a large enough sample size detectable patterns would emerge. So if it is trivial to design such a system then it should be equally as trivial to explain how one avoids creating patterns in the data.

One of the other factors such an argument fails to properly consider is that over 90% of poker players are break-even or losing poker players. So what exactly is a fish? How are you going to rig the game in favor of the fish when there are so many fish and so few sharks? How would you determine which players to rig the action for and which one’s to shaft?

These are the types of questions those who claim it is a trivial task never answer. I would love to see someone draw up a hypothetical model. That would at least be a step in the right direction for those who advocate that online poker is or can be rigged.

I’ll repeat a point I made in Ed’s comments. It is very easy to rig a single hand. It is more difficult but relatively easy to rig the game for a specific player. However it is far, far more complex to rig the game in favor of thousands of poor players.

Just think about the number of hands that have to be rigged. Every time you rig a hand you have to create one or more offsetting rigs so as not to create easily detectable patterns. Eventually, you’re rigging the outcome of every hand dealt.

I do agree that it is possible. I’m sure if you designed an entire system around rigging games it could be done. Like they say about almost anything in technology; given enough time, money, and resources anything is possible. The question is whether or not it’s practical.